Sweetpotato plant named &#39;05-111&#39;

ABSTRACT

A new variety of sweetpotato identified as ‘05-111’ is disclosed having disease resistance to both  fusarium  wilt,  rhizopus  soft rot, and  Streptomyces  soil rot, a orange flesh, and high yield characteristics.

The development of this invention was partially funded by the Governmentthrough a grant for the United States Department of Agriculture, USDANIFA Grant Number NA/LAB93957. The Government may have certain rights inthis invention.

This invention pertains to a new and distinct variety of sweetpotato.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Sweetpotatoes, unlike Irish potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), are not tuberpropagated plants. A “tuber” is a short, thickened portion of anunderground branch. Along a tuber “eyes” are found, each of whichcomprises a ridge bearing a scale-like leaf (analogous to a branch leaf)having minute meristematic buds in the axial of the leaf. By contrast,sweetpotato roots are developmentally and anatomically true roots,lacking meristematic buds, and are not derived from an undergroundbranch. Sweetpotatoes do not form tubers.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Genus and Species Name

This new and distinct sweetpotato variety, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.,demonstrates superior disease resistance to Fusarium wilt, soil rot, andRhizopus soft rot and exhibits an orange flesh. It also demonstrateshigh yield characteristics in comparison to ‘Beauregard’.

Variety Denomination

This new and distinct sweetpotato variety is identified as ‘05-111’, andis characterized by an orange flesh, high yield, and consistent shape.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The file of this patent contains at least one photograph executed incolor. Copies of this patent or patent application with color drawing(s)will be provided by the Patent and Trademark Office upon request andpayment of the necessary fee.

FIG. 1 is a color photograph of the fleshy root form of the novelvariety of sweetpotato identified as ‘05-111’.

FIG. 2 is a color photograph of the fleshy root form of the sweetpotatovariety identified as ‘Beauregard’.

FIG. 3 is a color photograph of the canopy biomasses of the variety ofsweetpotato identified as ‘Beauregard’ (shown on the left side of thephotograph) and the novel variety identified as ‘05-111’ (shown on theright side of the photograph).

DETAILED BOTANICAL DESCRIPTION

This new variety of sweetpotato, named ‘05-111’, resulted from an openpollinated cross performed in 1995 to the North Carolina StateUniversity female parent ‘97A14’ (not patented). The male parent wasunknown. Four patented male parents (‘L96-117’ U.S. Plant Pat. No.15,038 P2; ‘Bienville’ patented U.S. Plant Pat. No. 15,380 P3;‘Evangeline’ patented U.S. Plant Pat. No. 19,710 P3; ‘Murasaki-29’patented U.S. Plant Pat. No. 19,955 P2) were among the potential pollensources in the crossing nursery. All patents were held by the LouisianaAgricultural Experiment Station in Baton Rouge, La. ‘05-111’ wasdeveloped by the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station in BatonRouge, La., to provide a variety with characteristics similar to‘Beauregard’ (unpatented), but with improved yield and more consistentshape. ‘05-111’ was characterized by an orange flesh.

Plants of ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ are difficult to distinguish. A red[5 R (red) P (purple) (4/6)] marking at the base of the leaf junctionwith the petiole is larger in comparison to a similar marking found on‘Beauregard’ and extends for 1-2 cm from the junction in adaxial veinsof mature leaves and was present throughout major adaxial veins inimmature leaves. ‘Beauregard’ has no red hue to veins. Color terminologyused herein is in accordance with the MUNSELL® Book of Color (MunsellColor, GretagMacbeth LLC, 617 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, N.Y.12553-6148). The color descriptions and color illustrations are asnearly true as is reasonably possible. However, it is understood thatboth color and other phenotypic expressions described herein may varyfrom plant to plant with differences in growth, environment and culturalconditions, without any change in the genotype of the variety ‘05-111’.

‘05-111’ roots were stored during the winter at the LouisianaAgricultural Experiment Station (Sweetpotato Research Station) in Chase,La. ‘05-111’ was planted the following spring, resulting inapproximately 8-10 sprouts per root. Cuttings from the sprouts weretransplanted successfully for asexual reproduction. Asexual propagationof the new cultivar by cuttings has shown that the unique features ofthis new sweetpotato were stable and that the plant reproduced true totype in successive generations of asexual propagation. Plants describedherein were approximately 90-110 days in age from planting in full sunfield plantings.

FIG. 1 depicts the fleshy root form of the ‘05-111’ sweetpotato. Theskins vary from light to medium rose, which is similar to ‘Beauregard’,both at harvest and after several months of storage as shown in Table 1.MUNSELL Book of Color values for skin and flesh for both ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ storage roots after 6 months of storage are shown inTable 1. The ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato is depicted in FIG. 2. The skinfor both ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ was smooth. ‘05-111’ storage rootswere elliptical without lobing, and tend to be slightly longer than‘Beauregard’. The ‘05-111’ cortex was 4 mm in depth and the colorsimilar throughout. The flesh of ‘05-111’ is similar to ‘Beauregard’.

TABLE 1 Variable Variety Color Skin ‘05-111’ 10 R (red) 6/4 ‘Beauregard’10 R (red) 6/6 Flesh ‘05-111’ 2.5 Y (yellow) R (red) 7/10 ‘Beauregard’2.5 Y (yellow) R (red) 7/10

FIG. 3 depicts the canopy biomass of both ‘05-111’ sweetpotatoes and‘Beauregard’ sweetpotatoes. ‘05-111’ has green-stemmed vines [2.5 G(green) Y (yellow) (6/8)] from the apex to the crown of the roots. The‘05-111’ canopy biomass appears similar to ‘Beauregard’. The ‘05-111’canopy architecture was 22 cm in height from the soil surface and 305 cmin a radial spread. For ‘05-111’, three to four main vines arose fromthe main stem near the soil surface. The stem giving rise to these vineswas 2.0-2.5 cm in diameter; the 3-4 lateral vines were 213 cm in lengthwith diameters of about 0.5-0.6 cm at 65 cm from the base, diameters ofabout 0.7 cm at the base of the vine, and diameters of about 0.6 cm atthe first internode of the first fully developed leaf from the apex.Five to seven lateral branches arose from each of the main vines. At thefirst internode from the apex, the internode length was about 3.9 cmbetween the first and second fully developed leaves. Internode lengthsfor other sections of the vine averaged about 4.9 cm. Unfolded immatureleaves were dark green [2.5 G (green) Y (yellow) (3/4)] for the upperand green for the lower surface [2.5 G (green) Y (yellow) (4/4)], whichchange gradually over one to two nodes from the apex to a green uppersurface [5 G (green) Y (yellow) (4/4)] to a green lower surface [5 G(green) Y (yellow) (3/4)]. Mature leaves at five nodes from the apex hadan acute apex and mostly a cordate base and a smooth leaf margin. Matureleaves were about 11.7 cm long and 13.3 cm wide. Abaxial and adaxialveins were green [7.5 G (green) Y (yellow) (7/4)]. The petiole was green[2.5 G (green) Y (yellow) (4/4)] and similar to the leaf lamina. A red[5 R (red) P (purple) (4/6)] marking was at the base of the leafjunction with the petiole. This coloration is faded but present in majoradaxial veins in immature leaves, while diminished in mature leaves,extending for only 1-2 cm from the junction. The petiole was 12 cm longat five nodes from the apex, and 3-4 mm in diameter at 5 cm from theleaf junction. The dormant nodal meristem also was green [5 G (green) Y(yellow) (4/6)].

A typical inflorescence of ‘05-111’ displayed two to four clusters ofthree to six flowers per peduncle. Peduncles were green [2.5 G (green) Y(yellow) (5/8)], about 10-14 cm long, and about 4 mm in diameter.Individual flowers were about 4.5 cm long from the base of the calyx,and the corolla was 3.5 to 4 cm wide at the opening. The fused flowerpetals formed a pentagonal pattern with smooth edges. The inner throatof the corolla appeared purple [2.5 R (red) P (purple) (3/6)]. The innerand outer limbs of the corolla (corollas outermost area, distal from thecalyx) were very light purple [2.5 R (red) P (purple) (7/6)]. The fivesepals comprising the calyx were elliptic with a cordate apex andappeared to be green [2.5 G (green) Y (yellow) (5/2)]; three of thesesepals were about 10 mm long and 4 mm wide. Two other sepals(interspersed) were about 7 mm long and 2 mm wide. Sepal margins weresmooth. Stigmata were about 1.7 cm long and appeared to be purple [2.5 R(red) P (purple) (7/6)]. Four of the five stamens were inferior tostigmata. A slight fragrance was present.

Example 1 Tests Conducted

To confirm that ‘05-111’ was a new variety, controlled tests (e.g.,pathogen responses and yield) were conducted at the LouisianaAgricultural Experiment Station in Baton Rouge, La. ‘Beauregard’ wasselected for comparison because of its importance in commercial UnitedStates orange flesh sweetpotato acreage. Diseases that commonly affectthe growth of sweetpotatoes were selected to test for pathogen responsesin both varieties. Scions of ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ reacted similarlyto most diseases evaluated in the controlled tests. ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ were intermediate to resistant for Streptomyces soil rotcaused by Streptomyces ipomoeae (Person & W. J. Martin) Waksman &Henrici. ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ were resistant to Fusarium wilt orstem rot caused by Fusarium oxysporum Schlect. f. sp. batatas (Wollenw.)Snyd. & Hans.

Nematode reproduction was measured in greenhouse tests. ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ were susceptible to southern root-knot nematode,Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White 1919) Chitwood 1949. ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ were resistant to Rhizopus soft rot caused by Rhizopusstolonifer (Elm ex. Fr.) Lind. ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ weresusceptible to bacterial root rot caused by Dickeya dadantii Samson etal. as measured by postharvest inoculation of storage roots.

‘05-111’ did not appear to show any novel insect resistance.

To determine yield production, complete-block trials using fourreplications of ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ each were conducted in 2008and 2009 in areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama likely toproduce ‘05-111’. ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato plants weretransplanted in randomized complete-block trials at 31 cm spacings. Eachblock/plot was fertilized with approximately 250 pounds per acre of amixed fertilizer comprising 13% N, 13% P₂O₅, and 13% K₂O. ‘05-111’ wascompared to ‘Beauregard’ at transplanting dates beginning in May-July.Average yields were measured for the following grades of roots: U.S. #1(51-89 mm in diameter, 76-229 mm long); Canner (25-51 mm in diameter,51-178 mm long); and Jumbo (larger than U.S. #1 in diameter, length orboth, and without objectionable defects). A typical marketable root of‘05-111’ was 180-190 mm long, 60-70 mm in diameter, with mostlyround-elliptic in shapes. The base or distal end tended to be moreelongated in comparison to slightly rounder apex (proximal end). U.S. #1roots typically weighed 150-190 g.

A mid-season transplanting date trial was conducted at Grand Prairie,La. in 2009. ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ were transplanted on May 27,2009, and harvested on Sep. 30, 2009 (126 days after planting). Averageyields, measured as Metric Tons per Hectare (MT·ha⁻¹), are shown inTable 2.

TABLE 2 Selection US#1^(†) Canners^(†) Jumbos^(†) TMY^(‡†) ‘05-111’33.59a 7.02a 1.05a 41.65a ‘Beauregard’ 32.86a 6.10a 4.36a 43.32a^(†)Average yields in MT · ha⁻¹ of varieties followed by a common letterdo not differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan's MultipleRange Test. TMY^(‡) = total marketable yield

An early-season transplanting date trial was also conducted at Foley,Ala. on May 2, 2009, and harvested on Sep. 21, 2009 (123 days afterplanting). Average yields (MT·ha⁻¹) by grade of ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3 Selection US#1^(†) Canners^(†) Jumbos^(†) TMY^(‡†) ‘05-111’25.27a 12.44a 1.71a 39.42a ‘Beauregard’ 26.60a  9.27a 0b 38.81b^(†)Average yields in MT · ha⁻¹ of varieties followed by a common letterdo not differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan's MultipleRange Test. TMY^(‡) = total marketable yield

A mid-season transplanting date trial was also conducted at Vardaman,Miss. on Jun. 3, 2009, and harvested on Oct. 1, 2009 (120 days afterplanting). Average yields (MT·ha⁻¹) by grade of ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4 Selection US#1^(†) Canners^(†) Jumbos^(†) TMY^(‡†) ‘05-111’22.36a 13.39a  .90a 41.29a ‘Beauregard’ 15.97a 22.75a 3.10a 43.03a^(†)Average yields in MT · ha⁻¹ of varieties followed by a common letterdo not differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan's MultipleRange Test. TMY^(‡) = total marketable yield

A late-season transplanting date trial was also conducted at GrandPrairie, La. on Jul. 2 , 2008, and harvested on Nov. 11, 2008 (132 daysafter planting). Average yields (MT·ha⁻¹) by grade of ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5 Selection US#1^(†) Canners^(†) Jumbos^(†) TMY^(‡†) ‘05-111’24.09a 9.75a 1.51a 35.36a ‘Beauregard’ 13.62a 7.06a 3.64a 24.32a^(†)Average yields in MT · ha⁻¹ of varieties followed by a common letterdo not differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan's MultipleRange Test. TMY^(‡) = total marketable yield

A mid-season transplanting date trial was also conducted at Wisner,Louisiana on May 27, 2009, and harvested on Nov. 5, 2009 (162 days afterplanting). Average yields (MT·ha⁻¹) by grade of ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’ are shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6 Selection US#1^(†) Canners^(†) Jumbos^(†) TMY^(‡†) ‘05-111’35.52a  8.37a 4.88a 48.82a ‘Beauregard’ 32.72a 10.92a 3.42a 50.91a^(†)Average yields in MT · ha⁻¹ of varieties followed by a common letterdo not differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan's MultipleRange Test. TMY^(‡) = total marketable yield

As shown in Tables 2-6, ‘05-111’ produced yields comparable to, andexceeding ‘Beauregard’ in regional trials at various planting dates.Yield in comparison to ‘Beauregard’ in heavier silt loam soils (Tables2, 5, and 6) were similar to outcomes in lighter, sandy loam soils(Tables 3 and 4). Replicated plots at other farms and on station haveshown ‘05-111’ has consistent yields for early, middle, or late seasonplantings. Yield declines are within norms in poor environments.‘05-111’ had harvestable roots approximately 115-120 days afterplanting, which is typical development time for sweetpotatoes andcomparable to ‘Beauregard’. The yield of Jumbo grade is indicative ofearliness and ‘05-111’ was similar to the jumbo yield of ‘Beauregard’statistically; however, rank changed from plot to plot. Yield in 5 otherplots (data not shown) in Louisiana in years 2007 and 2008 showed nosignificant difference in yield in comparison to the ‘Beauregard’variety for the important U.S. #1 grade. Yield of ‘05-111’ for U.S. #1grade was significantly higher in one plot in 2007 in comparison to‘Beauregard’. In total, ‘05-111’ ranked higher in yield of U.S. #1 gradein 14 out of 19 farm plots in comparison to ‘Beauregard’ (years2007-2010). ‘05-111’ was also trialed at the Sweet Potato ResearchStation in 2006. ‘05-111’ did not differ in yield in comparison to‘Beauregard’ in an early planting; however, a late planting of ‘05-111’was significantly higher in yield in comparison to ‘Beauregard’. Grossyield of U.S. #1 grade was highest when estimates were made from flooddamaged fields (Tables 4 and 5), suggesting that ‘05-111’ has moretolerance to saturated soil conditions in comparison to ‘Beauregard’;however, additional data are needed to substantiate flooding tolerance.In total, this data reflects consistent high yield characteristics for‘05-111’.

Sugar profiles for baked ‘05-111’ and ‘Beauregard’ are shown in Table 7.For this 2009 test, roots were stored for five months after which theywere baked at 190° C. for approximately 2.0 h. Sucrose and maltosecontent in baked ‘05-111’ was similar to that found in baked‘Beauregard’. Total sugar content was also similar. Dry matter issimilar for ‘05-111’ (20.8%) and ‘Beauregard’ (21.0%). These resultsdemonstrate a similar level of sweetness and moistness for ‘05-111’ and‘Beauregard’.

TABLE 7 Selection Fructose^(†) Glucose^(‡) Sucrose^(‡) Maltose^(‡) Totalsugars^(‡†) ‘05-111’ 1.16 1.62 2.78 5.79 11.35 ‘Beaurgard’ 1.10 1.512.91 6.02 11.54 ^(†)Total sugars = fructose + glucose + maltose +sucrose. ^(‡)mg · g⁻¹ fresh weight basis.

‘05-111’ should be a valuable commercial sweetpotato variety. ‘05-111’produced plants (sprouts) comparable to ‘Beauregard’. Days to harvestfor ‘05-111’ were similar to ‘Beauregard’. ‘05-111’ exhibited similarsugar profiles in comparison to ‘Beauregard’. ‘05-111 has exhibitedsuperior yield in late plantings in comparison to ‘Beauregard’, whenunfavorably wet conditions were present.

We claim:
 1. A new and distinct variety of Ipomoea batatas plant named‘05-111’ as described and illustrated in the specification herein.